Promoting collaboration between university researchers and practitioners from the business and public sectors has emerged as an important tool of science policy. This article examines the discourses that policy makers employ in promoting this strategy by analyzing the narratives about the social relevance of science and its role vis-à-vis the industrial sector in the context of strategic research funding in Sweden. Four dominant discourses on science are identified and discussed. It is argued that these policy frames construct a boundary between research and practice, which is in turn used as rhetorical justification for research funding policies that seek to increase business influence and input to university research at the expense of academic autonomy in this sphere.
Benner, M.2001. Controversy and consensus: Swedish science and policy in the 1990s [Kontrovers och konsensus: vetenskap och politik i svenskt 1990-tal]. Stockholm: Institutet för studier av utbildning och forskning (SISTER)/Nya Doxa.
2.
Bush, V.1945. Science: The endless frontier. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.
3.
Cohen, L.
, J. McAuley, and J. Duberley. 2001. Continuity in discontinuity: Changing discourses of science in a market economy. Science, Technology, & Human Values26:145-166.
4.
Davies, B.2003. Death to critique and dissent? The policies and practices of new managerialism and of “evidence-based practice.”Gender and Education15:91-103.
5.
Department of Trade and Industry
. 2001. Research and development cooperation in the innovation system[Government proposition]. Sweden: Department of Trade and Industry.
6.
Elzinga, A.1997. The science-society contract in historical transformation: With special reference to “epistemic drift.”Social Science Information36:411-446.
7.
Elzinga, A.1980. Science policy in Sweden: Sectorization and adjustment to crisis. Research Policy9:116-146.
8.
Elzinga, A.
, and C. Landström, eds. 1996. Internationalism and science. London: Taylor and Francis.
9.
Etzkowitz, H.
, P. Asplund, and N. Nordman. 2000. The university and regional renewal: Emergence of an entrepreneurial paradigm in the US and Sweden. In The wealth of knowledge: Universities in the new economy, eds. G. Törnqvist and S. Sörlin, forthcoming.
10.
Evans, G. R.2001. The integrity of UK academic research under commercial threat. Science as Culture10:97-111.
11.
Fisher, F.
, and J. Forrester. 1993. Introduction. In The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning, eds. F. Fisher and J. Forrester, 1-17. London: Duke University Press.
12.
Fridlund, M.1999. Procuring products and power: Developing international competitiveness in Swedish electrotechnology and electric power. In Public technology procurement and innovation, economics of science, technology and innovation, eds. C. Edquist, L. Hommen, and L. Tsipouri, 99-120. Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
13.
Fuller, S.1998. Society’s shifting human-computer interface: A sociology of knowledge for the information age. Information, Communication and Society1:182-198.
Geiger, R.1992. The ambiguous link: Private industry and university research. In The economics of American higher education, eds. W. E. Becker and D. R. Lewis, 265-297. Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
16.
Gibbons, M.
, C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, C. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary society. London: Sage Publications.
17.
Hague, D.
, and K. Oakley. 2000. Spin-offs and start-ups in UK universities. London: CVCP.
18.
Hall, B.2002. The assessment: Technology policy. Oxford Review of Economic Policy18 (1): 1-9.
19.
Henrekson, M.
, and N. Rosenberg. 2001. Designing efficient institutions for science-based entrepreneurship: Lessons from the US and Sweden. The Journal of Technology Transfer26:207-231.
20.
Hessen, B.1931. The social and economic roots of Newton’s Principia. In Science at the cross roads, ed. N. Bukharin. London: Cass, 1973.
21.
Jacob, M.2001. Managing the institutionalisation of Mode 2 knowledge production. Science Studies14:83-100.
22.
Katz, J. S.
, and B. R. Martin. 1997. What is research collaboration?Research Policy26:1-18.
23.
Kleinman, D. L.
, and S. P. Vallas. 2001. Science, capitalism and the rise of the “knowledge worker”: The changing structure of knowledge production in the United States. Theory and Society30:451-492.
24.
Landberg, H.
, O. Edquist, and U. Svedin. 1995. Parliament, the government and research: Selected themes in two decades of Swedish research policy. Stockholm: Fritzes förlag. (Available in Swedish only.)
25.
Luks, F.1999. Post-normal science and the rhetorics of inquiry: Deconstructing normal science?Futures31:705-719.
26.
Lundvall, B.-Å.1998. Why study national systems and national styles of innovation?Technology Analysis & Strategic Management10:407-422.
27.
Manzione, J.2000. “Amusing and amazing and practical and military”: The legacy of scientific internationalism in American foreign policy, 1945-1963. Diplomatic History24:21-55.
28.
Martin, R.1999. The regional dimension in European public policy: Convergence or divergence?Basingstoke: Macmillan.
29.
Möllerud, B. G.1999. In Entrepreneurship in technological systems: The development of mobile telephony in Sweden. Stockholm: EFI.
30.
Nelson. R.
, ed. 1993. National systems of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31.
Nightingale, P.1998. A cognitive model of innovation. Research Policy27:689-709.
32.
Odén, B.1991. Research training and the state: Politics and university research in Sweden. In University and society: Essays on the social role of research and higher education, eds. M. Trow and T. Nybom, 143-155. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
33.
OECD
. 1994. Science and technology policy: Review and outlook. Paris: OECD.
34.
OECD
. 1996. Science, technology and industry outlook. Paris: OECD.
35.
OECD
. 1999. Managing national innovation systems. Paris: OECD.
36.
OECD
. 2001. Science, technology and industry outlook (Drivers of growth: Information technology, innovation and entrepreneurship). Paris: OECD.
37.
Parsons, W.2001. Scientists and politicians: The need to communicate. Public Understanding of Science10:303-314.
38.
Polster, C.2000. The future of the liberal university in the era of the global knowledge grab. Higher Education39:19-41.
39.
Poti, B.
, and E. Reale. 2000. Convergence and differentiation in institutional change among European public research systems: The decreasing role of public research institutes. Science and Public Policy27:421-431.
40.
Powell, W. W.
, and P. J. DiMaggio. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review48:147-160.
41.
Roberts, R.1998. Managing innovation: The pursuit of competitive advantage and the design of innovation intense environments. Research Policy27:159-175.
42.
Ruin, O.1991. Bending with the breeze. Political preferences and institutional reforms in the modern university system—A case study. In University and society: Essays on the social role of research and higher education, eds. M. Trow and T. Nybom, 47-58. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
43.
Saxenian, A.1994. Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44.
Schumpeter, J.1939. Business cycles: A theoretical, historical and statistical analysis of the capitalist process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
45.
Shenk, D.1999. Money + science = Ethics problems on campus. The Nation, March 22, 11-18.
46.
Shove, E.
, and A. Rip. 2000. Users and unicorns: A discussion of mythical beasts in interactive science. Science and Public Policy27:175-182.
47.
Simon, H. A.1969. The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
48.
Slaughter, S.
, and L. Leslie. 1997. Academic capitalism: Politics, policies and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
49.
Strathern, M.
, ed. 2000. Audit cultures: Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics and the academy. London: Routledge.
